David Bawden Replies

Date	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:42:51 -0600
To	Prakash John Mascarenhas
From	David Bawden

Dear Prakash, Devonia and Heather,

We have received your recent e-mails, and have been looking them over. A more complete reply will be prepared and sent out shortly.

Prakash, you have hit the nail on the head, to use an American colloquialism.

Rejection of Errors:

• I believe entirely and completely with all that the Church teaches as it was taught until the death of the last known legitimate pontiff, Pope Pius XII of happy memory in October of 1958 without question. Specifically, in accordance with the constant teaching of the Church, I confess that:



1. Against Lefebvrism: I believe that all those who accept a schismatic or schismatics or a heretic or heretics as their legitimate authority/ies and/or maintain or seek to maintain communion with them, are, at the very least, in schism, and become excommunicated and irregular.



2. Against Palmarianism (and all mystical papal claims): I believe that the pope can be supplied only by an election and not by any purported private revelation, as then, such a private revelation would necessarily become part of or equal to the public, general revelation. I therefore reject all those who claim to have been constituted pope in any apparition or any other private revelation as being necessarily false and anti-Catholic.



3. Against the Feeneyites: I believe entirely and completely with the Church in its teachings on the Baptisms of Blood and Desire and all its actions against the deviant Leonard Feeney, and recognize that he and his sect have seceded from the Church.
   
   (Note, these teachings can be found in the Council of Trent and Saint Thomas Aquinas.)

---

We have added a few things, but can make these statements without problem. We have fought against Lefebvrism for 21 years, Feeneyism for well over a decade, quoting the Council of Trent to many on this subjects, only to hear the ridiculous reply that only the Canons and not the reasoning supporting them are infallible. The many false apparitions must be rejected, because a true apparition would state:

1. 'John Paul II' is a heretical anti-pope and Lefebvre et al offer a non-Catholic solution to the problems in the Church, etc.


2. A pope must be elected and is necessary for the Catholic Church.


3. And many more truths that are evident in the light of the Divine and Catholic Faith.

And so where do we go from here? Allow Us to point out a couple of points for consideration, but not for circulation just yet. (We are preparing a formal reply to Devonia and Heather's appeal.)

1. There are differences between the time of Constance and now; differences that significantly effect the status of the clergy. The question is not validity, but licitity, although there are good arguments that Lefebvre and his little altar boys are no more valid priests than John Paul II is pope.


2. Obviously all heretics must be rejected, including, but not limited to Lefebvrites, Palmarians and Feeneyites.
   
   (Personally I do not like the term Traditionalist, which was coined by Lefebvre in the mid '70's. In my book, Traditionalists are those who seek a solution to the problems of the Church outside of Her Doctrines and Laws, both of which are essential, since Canon Law is written reason, as Pope Benedict XV states in promulgating the Code of Canon Law.)
   
   
3. Those who reject the necessity of the Papacy wither by word or action (refusing to make all efforts to bring about a Papal election, or after the election was completed, finding and submitting to the Pope), are schismatic at the very least and heretical, because they reject the clear doctrine of the true Vatican Council in 1870.
   
   The fact that Thuc was consecrating bishops to maintain the apostolic succession until a Pope could be elected puts things backwards.
   
   Why didn't he call the clergy together, elect a Pope and have that Pope then appoint bishops for him to consecrate?
   
   I have another paper here that points out that Thuc never renounced the heresies he adhered to at Vatican II. We know Lefebvre signed heretical documents, and must presume that Thuc did, because he never stated otherwise.
   
   This is an important omission on his part.



4. Finally, I don't think anyone realizes just how bad things really are. They are happy with their sacrilegious Sunday Mass.
   
   Of course, there are the home-aloners, who act as if the final trumpet is about to blow, which is a rejection of the fact that the Church will last AS JESUS ESTABLISHED IT until the end of time.
   
   What is Cassiciacanism? (Realize that as soon as I was elected Pope in 1990, I lost all contact with the Traditionalist world, and am not up on what has happened since that time. I didn't hear about Linus II, until 1998, when I was told that I had resigned in his favor. I replied, "Linus who?")
   
   
5. Many reject Our claim to be Pope without making any investigation into the matter. We will resign, but only to a Catholic Council and not one with schismatics or heretics participating in any way, shape or form.

All of these things must be answered in the light of the Divine and Catholic Faith, and not based on personal opinions. We must hit the books as our Lord Jesus Christ advises (see Matthew 24)

Finally, I must comment on the statement that only bishops can elect. If the Thuc line are illicit, which I believe it can be proven beyond doubt they are, then they are not bishops in the eyes of the Church. They have no authority, because they have been illegitimately consecrated. (I will discuss this more thoroughly and give the evidence.)

May God bless all of you and let us proceed ahead.

Pope Michael.